Jorge G. Gonzalez Rhetoric Summer 2002 A Clear Problem and the Nuclear Solution           Every year tons of toxic gases are released into the atmosphere.  This results in smog, acid rain, and other harmful toxins.  All of these toxins come from our primary sources of energy, coal and natural gases.  There have been many studies on how to clean our atmosphere, yet no one dared take notice of a solution that has been around for years.  People always complain about the dangers of burning oil and other fossil-fuels, yet these are the same people who protest the use of a better and cleaner source of electricity that has been around for years: nuclear energy.  Nuclear energy is a clean and valuable source of power and should be utilized.           Chernobyl, a Russian nuclear power plant experiences a meltdown and lays waste to the surrounding area.  Three Mile Island, an American plant, is on the verge of a meltdown before it is contained.  Whenever someone talks about the use of nuclear energy these two incidents are brought up to dissuade its use.  Professor Alok Kumar, associate professor at the State University of New York stresses that "not a single human life has been lost during accidents at nuclear power plants in the United States."  There have only been two major incidents in over forty years in countries all over the world using nuclear energy, yet Americans still believe that nuclear energy is a great evil.  According to Denis Beller, an engineer and technical staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Richard Rhodes, a noted author of nuclear related books, "More than 40 years of commercial nuclear power operations demonstrate that nuclear power is much safer than fossil-fuel systems in terms of industrial accidents, environmental damage, health effects and long-term risk."            Something that tends to be exaggerated in our society today is the actual impact of accidents that have occurred at nuclear plants.  But first something must be made clear: no technological system is immune to accidents.  History shows that dam overflows and failures in different countries have resulted in thousands of deaths, while coal mining accidents, oil and gas plant fires and pipeline explosions typically kill hundreds per incident (Beller and Rhodes).   It has been proven that with all human progress there will be fatalities in its wake although according to Kumar, "not a single human life has been lost during accidents at nuclear power plants in the United States." Beller and Kumar as well as many other researchers of nuclear power are of the same mind, that the possibilities of a major nuclear accident involving multiple human and technical failures are minimal.  As indicated by William Rusher, a nationally syndicated columnist, what happened at Chernobyl shouldn't cause America to forgo nuclear power because the Soviets operated a primitive and unreliable power plant that wouldn't have obtained a permit in the U.S.  The Chernobyl explosion resulted from human error and a faulty reactor design that wouldn't have been used or even considered in the West (Beller and Rhodes).  What happened in Russia was the fault of the Russians.  They failed to maintain their systems at optimal levels and the result was terrible.  Everyone should know that in the United States we hold ourselves to higher standards than the rest of the world and force ourselves to produce the best technology.  The incident at Three Mile Island only demonstrated the safety of American plants; the containing mechanisms worked exactly as they were designed.  Thus not a single life was lost (Rusher).            America depends almost entirely on sources that continually pollute our atmosphere.  Instead of talking about trying to clean our air, America should take the initiative and build more nuclear plants around the country. That would greatly reduce the amount of toxins released into the air by our ubiquitous coal and gas burning plants.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, since 1973 nuclear plants have avoided the release of nearly 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide.  And nuclear plants have played a major role in avoiding emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that form acid rain and smog ("Nuclear Power").  America's primary sources of energy, coal and natural gas, constantly release harmful particles into the atmosphere with their use.  Nuclear power, on the other hand, releases nothing into the atmosphere and still produces more power than burning coal or natural gas.  James A. Lake, associate laboratory director for systems at the U.S. Department of Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, says that nuclear power production annually avoids the emission of more than 175,000,000 tons of carbon that would have been released if the same amount of power had been generated by burning coal.  Beller also states, "a one thousand megawatt electric coal-fired power plant releases about one hundred times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant."  When coal is burned, uranium and thorium, mildly radioactive elements common in the earth's crust, are both released.  Radioactive radon gas, produced from decayed uranium in the ground, is released during the mining of coal (Beller and Rhodes).  So who needs nuclear plants when apparently the energy we use now produces even more radiation?  In England the same results are being found regarding nuclear energy's benefit to the environment.  The article, "Going Green: Sources that Generate Controversy," states that "every year a coal-fired power station produces seven million tons of carbon dioxide and two hundred thousand tons of sulfur dioxide, as well as two hundred thousand of fairly toxic ash."  People only want the best for themselves and their children.  If wanting the best includes living in a world where man can live pollution free, away from fears of birth defects and other pollution related problems, then how come everything is being done counter to this?  Recent studies by the Harvard School of Public Health show that pollutants from coal burning cause about fifteen thousand premature deaths in the United States annually (Beller and Rhodes).  If this is the case then why do people loathe the use of such a wonderful source?            The only by-product of nuclear energy is the radioactive waste it produces which if not properly contained can be dangerous.  People are right to be worried about this since long-term storage of this extremely hazardous product can be problematic.  However, according to Rusher, "The radioactive wastes produced by a nuclear power plant are easily 'vitrified' or converted into solid glass which can then be safely buried in salt deposits that have been undisturbed for tens of millions of years."   Along with its record for safety, America also has one of the most effective processes for storage of toxic wastes.  As mentioned in The Boston Herald by Glenn A. Price, a nuclear scientist at the Los Alamos and Brookhaven National Laboratories, there have been special containers licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that can be used to contain spent fuel and are able to withstand accidents far worse than any expected.   Few people know there is a process that recycles some of the waste allowing it to be reusable.  Besides extending the world's uranium resources, recycling would make it possible to convert plutonium to useful energy while reducing it to a shorter-lived, nonthreatening nuclear waste (Beller and Rhodes).  Other countries using nuclear power employ what is called a closed nuclear fuel cycle.  Used fuel is recycled to recover the uranium and plutonium, which is then reprocessed into new fuel (Lake).  This recycling process helps minimize the overall production of nuclear wastes and reduces the demand for storage space.  Even now, more efficient ways of recycling wastes are being developed, and if further perfected, the nuclear waste so many people are concerned about will not be as bad as it could be.  Aside from the wastes, nuclear energy produces no other particles or substances harmful to man or the environment, making it probably one of the cleanest forms of energy available.           The initial cost to build a nuclear plant is extremely high, is a deterrent to many people, and leads many to look to alternative sources of energy, mainly solar and wind. First it must be shown that because nuclear plants take so many protective and security measures the cost of building them is indeed quite high.  As noted by Lewis Wolpert, professor of biology at the University College London, "a disadvantage of nuclear power is the high initial cost of the plant, but the advantages when compared with generating electricity plants powered by coal are enormous."  If people bothered to look at the details of where this money goes, it would show a substantial amount goes into making the nuclear plants safe from radiation leaks and installing the most reliable systems available to get the most out of these plants.  In the past year some long-term safety goals were set forth for nuclear plants. The three major objectives included ways to improve safety and reliability of plants, to lessen the possibility of damages, and to minimize the potential consequences if an accident were to occur (Lake).  If coal and gas burning power plants were made to sequester the pollutants they generate their cost would go up as well, and quite possibly even pass the cost of a nuclear plant.  In terms of overall power production, nuclear power produces more for less.  Nuclear plants averaged 1.85 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to gas production of electricity at 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour and coal at 3.18 per kilowatt-hour (Beller and Rhodes).  Initially nuclear power may be expensive, but for a world that increases its energy use every year it's priceless.           The benefits of nuclear energy should not be ignored because of two incidents that occurred years ago.  Nor should people be made to fear other possibilities.  Nuclear power is a proven source.  The lack of knowledge and misconceptions about it has cut short its growth in the American landscape.  Bernard L. Cohen, professor-emeritus of physics and of environment and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh, believes a distorted picture is all too often portrayed to the public and is thus preventing people from accepting nuclear energy as a blessing and not a danger (21).  The nuclear industry has demonstrated every year that it can safely and economically operate its power plants as observed by Thomas F. Farrell, chief executive officer of Dominion.  The U.S. should take full advantage of this extremely plentiful and efficient source and get the maximum usage out of it. Works Cited Beller, Denis, and Richard Rhodes.  "The Need for Nuclear Power."  Foreign Affairs  79           (2000): 30. Cohen, Bernard Leonard.  Before It's Too Late: A Scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy. New           York: Plenum Press, 1983. Farrell, Thomas F.  "Significant Challenges for the Nuclear Power Industry."  Nuclear Plant           Journal 19 (2001): 35. "Going Green: Sources that Generate Controversy."  Mirror [London, England] 29 Mar.           2002: 50. Kumar, Alok.  "Nuclear Power: Blessing or Blight?"  The World and I  12 (2002): 76. Lake, James A.  "The Case for Nuclear Power."  Scientific American 286 (2002): 76. "Nuclear Power a Clear Alternative."  Wisconsin State Journal 15 Apr. 2001: B2. Price, Glenn A.  "Let's Lay to Waste Anti-Nuke Hysteria."  Boston Herald 30 Dec. 2000: O15. Rusher, William.  "The Answer is Nuclear Power."  Human Events 28 May 2001: 10. Wolpert, Lewis.  "Nature & Science: The Safety and Reliability of Nuclear Power is Having a           Significant Impact."  The Independent 3 June 2002: 15.